Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) BY this order I shall be disposing of IA No. 7668 of 1989 and IA No. 6621 of 1990. IA No. 7668 of 1989 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX rules I and 2 CPC, seeking a restraint on the defendants from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of property No. K-79b, Kalkaji, New Delhi. IA 6621 of 1990, is the application moved by defendant No. l for vacation of interim orders dated 3-10-1989 and 3-7-1990 by which the defendants were restrained from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit property.

(I) The application for injunction is filed in a suit for Specific Performance. The suit was filed on 3-1-1989. The plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 2 Mr. Kuljit Singh Gorkal, holding himself out to be the owner of house No. K-79b, Kalkaji, New Delhi, agreed to sell the same for a consideration of Rs. 13. 25 lacs to the plaintiff. A sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2, who executed a receipt-cum- agreement dated 16-7-1988 acknowledging the receipt of the said sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 as token money.

(II) The case of the plaintiff further is that the defendant No. 2 had agreed to obtain all requisite permissions and have the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 it is stated had approached the plaintiff with one Mr. Arora of M/s. Shiv Estate Agency for the sale of the property.

(III) The plaintiff alleges that defendant No. 2 avoided completing the sale on one pretext or the other and finally contended that the suit property which originally belonged to his father Late Shri Ranbir Singh, now stood bequeathed to the son of the defendant No. 2 i. e. Mr. Gurmit Singh, defendant No. l herein. Further that the property had been mutated in favour of defendant No. 1.

(IV) The plaintiff it appears being aggrieved lodged a FIR against the defendant No. 2 under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, pursuant to which a case was registered and defendant No. 2 was arrested and application for bail was also rejected. The FIR is dated 19-9-1988. The allegations in FIR are that the defendant No. 2 had falsely represented himself to be the owner and on this false representation made him part with Rs. 20,000. 00 as token money. Further the defendant No. 2 did not turn up within two days as promised. The plaintiff accused defendant No. 2 of cheating. In para 9 of the plaint it was claimed that defendant No. l being the son of defendant No. 2, defendant No. l is bound by the acts of defendant No. 2 and/or defendant No. 2 is deemed to be the agent of defendant No. l. It was further alleged that the entire transaction took place with the consent and knowledge of defendant No. 1.

(V) The plaintiff subsequently moved an application IA 11837 of 1992, wherein he sought to implead the defendant No. 3, who is the subsequent purchaser of the property from defendant No. l. The said amendment was allowed vide orders dated 28-10-1993 and defendant No. 3 was impleaded as the purchaser. Amended plaint was filed and written, statement to the amended plaint had also been filed and pleadings completed.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. l in the written statement filed has contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against him. The defendant No. l admittedly did not enter into any contract with the plaintiff. It is further claimed that there was no concluded contract even with the defendant No. 2 father of defendant No. l, to whom also a token advance subject to direct negotiation with defendant No. l had been given, which ultimately also did not materialize. The defendant No. l claims to have sold the property in question to defendant No. 3 and delivered possession of the same on 2-5-1989 to the said defendant.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 2 in the written statement filed has contended that he was neither the owner of the property nor had entered into any agreement to sell with plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 claims that in July 1988, when he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document